Returning list of DjangoObjectTypes as opposed to list of Models causes client to override previous results

[bitofbreeze]

This is truly a complicated one.

I have this graphene node

class TripNode(DjangoObjectType):
    legs = List(LegNode)

    # Need explicit pk when forming TripNode manually and querying for id
    pk = String(source="id")

    class Meta:
        model = Trip
        interfaces = (relay.Node,)

The resolver fetches some remote data and resolves legs there since legs is derived from that remote data as well.

def resolve_trips(root, info, **kwargs):
        response = requests.get("")

        return [
            TripNode(
                **{
                    "id": uuid.uuid4(),
                    "origin": trip["origin"],
                    "legs": [
                        TripLeg(
                            origin_hub=leg["flyFrom"],
                            id=uuid.uuid4(),
                        )
                        for leg in trip["route"]
                    ],
                }
            )
            for trip in response.json()["data"]
        ]

Usually I would instead return a list of Trips but I can't use the Django model here because I am resolving the extra field legs that does not exist in the model. One reason it doesn't is that it must be ordered so a one-to-many field would not suffice without some addition.

If I do return a list of Trips without legs, it works fine and the client doesn't overwrite the previous query results with the new ones. But that weird overwrite behavior does occur when I use TripNode instead, and that's the only difference. Therefore I am making the issue here instead of in the client repo (relay) because I think it has to do with some graphQL standard not being respected in this case.

I'm pretty much at a loss for what's going on and would appreciate any thoughts.

[jkimbo]

@CSFlorin that is strange. Can you try making the TripNode type inherit from graphene.ObjectType instead of DjangoObject type? DjangoObjectType is just a wrapper around ObjectType which automatically creates fields from Django models.

[bitofbreeze]

So if I do it that way, it works if I provide an id. If I don't, it exhibits the same behavior. Perhaps that's a clue into why it was doing this. But I was in fact providing an id when doing it with the DjangoObjectType, so something tells me that was not being respected by this library. I know it's not usual behavior to only use the django model as a schema and not actually save instances I return, but it works for most of my use cases

[jkimbo]

@CSFlorin I'm not I fully understand what the problem is. Could you fork this repl.it and reproduce the issue that you are seeing: https://repl.it/@jkimbo/Graphene-Django-Example ?

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.